New Search
cr <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to limit the <br />boundary expansion to the twenty -acre site of the G1oryBee expansion. <br />Ms. Bettrrm said she had questions about the extra territorial extension of urban services. She said that <br />G1oryBee was leveraging its good reputation in the community to buy additional property so that it could be <br />included in the boundary expansion and result in a profit from the sale of property within the enterprise zone <br />and that was not the purpose of the enterprise zone. She said the County foregoing taxes would impact the <br />City because of the number of overlapping services. She did not think it was fair to consider a boundary <br />expansion that would give the benefit of potential tax breaks to companies that were not yet identified. She <br />said the creation of ten jobs was a very low threshold for qualifying a business. <br />The motion to amend failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. <br />Mr. Zelenka said he would not support the request to amend the boundary because it was not clear to him <br />that the project would not happen .anyway. He questioned whether the council should be making companies <br />more profitable and said the threshold for providing an exemption should be very high. He said a business <br />should have to make the case that without the incentive a development would not occur. He thought there <br />should be incentives for sustainable development such as proposed by G1oryBee. <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, called for the question. The motion passed, <br />5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. <br />The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor voting in <br />opposition. <br />Ms. Ortiz arrived at 6 p.m. <br />B. WORK SESSION: Tax Levy for Funding of Pavement Capital Preservation Projects <br />Sue Cutsogeorge, Finance Division, stated that materials in the agenda packet explained the types of <br />expenditures proposed to be made from bond proceeds and provided a list of high profile street repair <br />Projects. She referred to a map showing the location of projects, which were distributed throughout the City <br />primarily on major arterials and collectors. She said those projects comprised about one -third of the <br />proposed bond spending and the remainder would be used for additional street repair projects defined in the <br />ballot measure language and determined by the City's pavement management system, including $350,000 <br />annually for off - street bike and pedestrian paths. <br />Ms. Cutsogeorge distributed and reviewed a summary of results from a January 2008 poll of citizens <br />indicating a majority was willing to pay additional property taxes for street repair. She said the poll also <br />identified respondents' street repair priorities. She said the recommended motion directed the City Manager <br />to bring back a resolution placing an $81 million bond measure on the May 2008 ballot with the list of high <br />profile projects included in the resolution. <br />Ms. Bettman asked what percentage of the $81 million was not construction costs. Kurt Corey, Public <br />Works, replied that non - construction expenses included project management, engineering and oversight, <br />which typically ranged from 10 to 20 percent of a project's costs. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 28, 2008 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />